Juro vs SpotDraft: Mid-Market CLM Comparison (2026)

Two modern CLMs for growing companies: Juro focuses on browser-native simplicity, SpotDraft on legal ops automation. Here's how they stack up for mid-market teams.

Quick Comparison

Feature	Juro	SpotDraft
Target Market	Mid-market (50-500)	Mid-market legal ops
Average Price	~$35K/year	~$15-25K/year
Setup Time	1-2 weeks	2-4 weeks
Best For	Business users	Legal teams
User Interface	Modern, browser-native	Functional, feature-rich
AI Features	Growing	Growing
Unlimited Users	Yes	No

Bottom line: Juro excels at getting business users (sales, HR, procurement) to adopt contract workflows. SpotDraft is built for legal teams who want deeper workflow automation. For smaller teams, consider Bind as a budget-friendly alternative.

Company Backgrounds

Juro

Founded: 2016
Headquarters: London
Funding: $50M+ raised
Customers: Deliveroo, Trustpilot, Cazoo, Paddle
Focus: All-in-one contract automation for scaling businesses

Juro positions itself as the CLM designed for both legal and commercial teams, emphasizing speed and adoption over maximum customization.

SpotDraft

Founded: 2017
Headquarters: New York/Bangalore
Funding: $54M raised (Series B)
Customers: Airbnb, Notion, Strava, Chargebee
Focus: Legal ops automation for fast-growing companies

SpotDraft targets companies with dedicated legal functions who need intake management, workflow automation, and template control.

Pricing Comparison

Juro Pricing

Juro uses volume-based pricing with unlimited users:

Average cost: ~$35,000/year (according to buyer data)
Starting point: ~$20,000/year for smaller implementations
Typical mid-market: $35,000-$60,000/year
Pricing model: Contract volume-based, unlimited users included
Implementation: Usually included

SpotDraft Pricing

SpotDraft offers flexible pricing:

Starting point: ~$10,000/year
Typical mid-market: $15,000-$30,000/year
Pricing model: Can be user-based or volume-based
Implementation: Usually included

Cost by Scenario

Scenario	Juro	SpotDraft
50 employees, 500 contracts/year	~$25K	~$12K
150 employees, 1,500 contracts/year	~$40K	~$20K
300 employees, 3,000 contracts/year	~$55K	~$28K

SpotDraft is generally more affordable, but Juro's unlimited users model can be more economical for companies with many contract creators.

Feature Comparison

Contract Creation

Feature	Juro	SpotDraft
Template builder	Modern, browser-native	Full-featured
AI drafting	Growing	Growing
Clause library	Yes	Yes
Conditional logic	Yes	Yes
Bulk generation	Yes	Yes
Word integration	Export	Native plugin

Verdict: Juro's browser-native editor means no switching tools. SpotDraft's Word plugin works better for teams already in Microsoft.

Workflow & Approvals

Feature	Juro	SpotDraft
Approval chains	Standard	Advanced
Legal intake	Basic	Advanced
Auto-routing	Yes	Yes
SLA tracking	Basic	Yes
Request forms	Yes	Advanced

Verdict: SpotDraft leads on legal intake and workflow automation.

E-Signatures

Feature	Juro	SpotDraft
Native signatures	Yes	Yes
DocuSign integration	Yes	Yes
Signing order	Flexible	Flexible
Multi-party	Yes	Yes

Verdict: Tie - both handle signatures well.

Integrations

Integration	Juro	SpotDraft
Salesforce	Yes	Yes
HubSpot	Yes	Yes
Slack	Yes	Yes
Google Workspace	Yes	Yes
Microsoft 365	Yes	Yes
Workday	No	Yes

Verdict: Similar core integrations. SpotDraft has more enterprise HR/finance integrations.

User Experience

Juro UX

Strengths:

Clean, modern interface
Browser-native editing (no Word needed)
Business users adopt quickly
Faster time to value

Weaknesses:

Less customization than SpotDraft
Fewer power-user features
Legal teams may want more control

Best for: Companies where sales, HR, or procurement need to create contracts without legal bottlenecks.

SpotDraft UX

Strengths:

Purpose-built for legal teams
Advanced intake forms
Detailed workflow controls
Strong Microsoft integration

Weaknesses:

Steeper learning curve
More legal-focused (business adoption can lag)
More setup required

Best for: Companies with dedicated legal teams who want maximum workflow control.

AI Capabilities

Juro AI

AI-powered search: Find contracts by meaning, not just keywords
Auto-tagging: Automatically categorize contracts
Smart suggestions: Template recommendations based on context
AI Extract: Pull key data from contracts automatically

SpotDraft AI

VerifAI: AI-assisted contract review
Auto-extraction: Pull metadata from uploaded contracts
Smart templates: Dynamic clause insertion
Risk flagging: Identify non-standard terms

Verdict: Both are investing heavily in AI. SpotDraft's VerifAI review features are more mature. Juro's search is excellent.

Ideal Customer Profiles

Choose Juro If:

Company size: 50-500 employees
Contract volume: 200-2,000 contracts/year
Team: Legal works closely with business teams
Needs: Fast adoption, modern UX, unlimited users
Budget: $25K-60K/year
Priority: Time to value and user adoption

Choose SpotDraft If:

Company size: 50-300 employees
Contract volume: 200-1,500 contracts/year
Team: Dedicated legal ops or contract admin
Needs: Advanced workflows, intake management
Budget: $10K-30K/year
Priority: Legal process control

What Customers Say

Juro Reviews

G2 Rating: 4.7/5 stars

Common praise:

"Beautiful interface, easy to use"
"Business teams actually use it"
"Got up and running quickly"

Common complaints:

"Some enterprise features missing"
"Wish it had more customization"
"Premium pricing"

SpotDraft Reviews

G2 Rating: 4.6/5 stars

Common praise:

"Great for legal workflow automation"
"Strong intake management"
"Good value for features"

Common complaints:

"Takes time to set up properly"
"Business users need training"
"Interface not as modern"

Alternative to Consider

Bind - For Smaller Teams and Tighter Budgets

If neither Juro nor SpotDraft fits your needs, consider Bind:

Key differentiators:

Conversational AI - Just describe what you need, get a contract in seconds
300+ templates - NDAs, MSAs, employment agreements ready to use
Tabula view - See all contracts in a table with custom columns
Negotiation view (Business) - AI resolves redlines based on your playbook
Price: Individual $19/user/month | Business $500/month (vs. $20K-60K/year for Juro/SpotDraft)

Best for: Startups and SMBs who want AI-powered CLM without mid-market pricing.

Try Bind free for 3 days →

Making Your Decision

Decision Framework

Who creates contracts?
- Mostly legal: SpotDraft
- Business teams + legal: Juro
What's your priority?
- Workflow control: SpotDraft
- User adoption: Juro
What's your budget?
- Under $15K/year: Consider Bind
- $15-30K/year: SpotDraft likely
- $25K+/year: Either, depending on needs
How complex are your workflows?
- Standard approvals: Either
- Advanced intake + routing: SpotDraft
How important is unlimited users?
- Critical (many contract creators): Juro
- Less important: SpotDraft may be more economical

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Juro worth the premium over SpotDraft?

If business team adoption is critical and you have many contract creators, Juro's unlimited users and modern UX can justify the premium. If you have a smaller legal team managing workflows, SpotDraft offers better value.

Which has better AI?

Both are investing heavily. SpotDraft's VerifAI review is currently more advanced. Juro's AI search is excellent. Expect both to evolve quickly.

Can I migrate between them?

Yes. Both support contract export. Template and workflow migration will require rebuilding. Plan for 2-4 weeks transition.

Which integrates better with Salesforce?

Both have solid Salesforce integrations. SpotDraft's is slightly more mature for complex Salesforce workflows.

Final Recommendations

For Business-Driven Contract Teams: Juro delivers the best user experience and fastest adoption. Ideal when sales, HR, or procurement need to create contracts without waiting for legal.

For Legal Ops Teams: SpotDraft offers deeper workflow automation and better value for legal-centric organizations. Ideal when legal manages intake and wants maximum control.

For Startups and Budget-Conscious Teams: Bind offers AI-powered CLM at a fraction of the cost - $500/month for Business tier vs. $20K+/year for Juro or SpotDraft.